[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Still waiting for those quotes.....

The quotes from Cheney are more numerous, but are loosely connected as are the following;

Hillary Clinton, October 2002:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members."

PICKERING: "Yeah, I would like to consult my notes just to be sure that what I have to say is stated clearly and correctly. We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program." You might recall it was this concern that led to Clinton's bombing of an aspirin factory on the premise of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Well... some may not recall, but that's relatively predictable.

ABC News: The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program. Senate Intelligence Committee's report explicitly concluded that al Qaeda did in fact have a cooperative, if informal, relationship with Iraqi agents working under Saddam. The report of the bipartisan 9/11 commission came to the same conclusion, as did a comparably independent British investigation conducted by Lord Butler, which pointed to “meetings . . . between senior Iraqi representatives and senior al-Qaeda operatives.”

Evan Bayh, (D) Indiana-who sat on the Intelligence Committee: "the relationship seemed to have its roots in mutual exploitation. Saddam Hussein used terrorism for his own ends, and Osama bin Laden used a nation-state for the things that only a nation-state can provide."

Bill Richardson, at the time U.S. ambassador to the United Nations on "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer," on August 30, 1998: "We know for a fact, physical evidence, soil samples of VX precursor--chemical precursor at the site," said Richardson. "Secondly, Wolf, direct evidence of ties between Osama bin Laden and the Military Industrial Corporation--the al Shifa factory was part of that. This is an operation--a collection of buildings that does a lot of this dirty munitions stuff. And, thirdly, there is no evidence that this precursor has a commercial application. So, you combine that with Sudan support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX, and you combine that, also, with the chemical precursor issue, and Sudan's leadership support for Osama bin Laden, and you've got a pretty clear cut case."

Lieberman: "I want to be real clear about the connection with terrorists. I've seen a lot of evidence on this. There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. I never could reach the conclusion that [Saddam] was part of September 11. Don't get me wrong about that. But there was so much smoke there that it made me worry. And you know, some people say with a great facility, al Qaeda and Saddam could never get together. He is secular and they're theological. But there's something that tied them together. It's their hatred of us."

While I'm certain these weren't the paricular quotes you were looking for, one thing may be evident: To insist that this connection is the fairy tale of the Bush Administration is simply more lies from those who have a short attention span, substantial memory loss or a shameless partisan chip on their shoulder. Snap out of it people. If you're being duped, you're being duped. It's not one way one day and another the next depending upon whether there's an (R) or (D) after their name.

While there appears no direct link between Al Qaeda and Iraq; to suggest this is the brain-child of the Bush Administration is nothing less than partisan BS of the highest order.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You basically illustrated my point of people believing things that aren't supported by reality, by presenting YET ANOTHER conspiracy illustrating your belief that Saddam and the Bushes were somehow "best buds" or something. Completely flying in the face of the fact that both Bush Sr. and Jr. did their best to KILL their so-called "buddy", much of his family and government, and dismantle his regime- in fact, the later DID all of those! Now, how many people like yourself believe some crazy conspiracy that these people were somehow in cahoots with one another during any of that? Let's see a poll. I haven't seen anyone take one.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's fact. Prior to becoming president, and even while he was president George Bush Sr. had friendly relations with Saddam Hussein. Bush worked with Hussein as a diplomat in the 80s (and 70s? not sure). In the late 80s, when Bush was president, he continued to show favor towards Hussein and fought against imposing sanction on Iraq following the 1988 Halabja gassing.

George Bush Sr. was friendly with Saddam Hussein. Until he wasn't. The decision to attack Iraq the first time was a complete reversal of policy for Bush. Really it made very little sense for him to do so since, as you so clearly pointed out, it makes no sense for Bush to have attacked his friend. Bush had never cared about the horrible things that Hussein was doing before, he been nothing but supporting of Hussein's regime, so why the sudden change of heart?

Do some reading, learn your history. You are absolutely wrong in this case.

Edit:
I'm sure you won't accept this source as valid, but it's the first one I could find that goes into any detail on the matter: Democracy Now! | Halabja: How Bush Sr. Continued to Support Saddam After the 1988 Gassing of Thousands And Bush Jr. Used it As a Pretext For War 15 Years Later

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Bush had never cared about the horrible things that Hussein was doing before, he been nothing but supporting of Hussein's regime, so why the sudden change of heart?

easy answer

In Kuwait, Saddam was going to do horrible things to people who had a bunch of oil.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

While I'm certain these weren't the paricular quotes you were looking for, one thing may be evident: To insist that this connection is the fairy tale of the Bush Administration is simply more lies from those who have a short attention span, substantial memory loss or a shameless partisan chip on their shoulder. Snap out of it people. If you're being duped, you're being duped. It's not one way one day and another the next depending upon whether there's an (R) or (D) after their name.

While there appears no direct link between Al Qaeda and Iraq; to suggest this is the brain-child of the Bush Administration is nothing less than partisan BS of the highest order.

There you go, thanks for the quotes. They prove the opposite of what you say, though, since the intelligence they are based on is what the administration was feeding them. You were duped, and you are still being duped. To claim that the Bush administration did not make up this intelligence is partisan BS of the highest order. Etc. substantial memory loss blah short attention span etc. (R)/(D) blah fairy tale.

[olePigeon]

From day 1, my position (as well as many others) never changed because it was so god damn obvious what was going on and what would happen with Iraq. It's rather amusing watching both sides trying to squirm out of it and blame each other, especially Republicans. They should all be car salesmen, they twist it around so much and delude themselves to such an extent that they actually believe the horsesh*t they're shoveling.

Let me lay it out for you guys, but it won't stop all the partisan spin to save face:

1. 9/11 was not orchestrated by our government, it's rediculous to think so.
2. 9/11 would not have been thwarted even if Bush's current policies were in effect.
3. The Bush Administration knowingly and pueposefully used 9/11 as a scapegoat to garner support for the war in Iraq.
4. The Iraq war is about money. That's it.
5. The majority of U.S. voters are gullible.

[Graviton]

41% of Americans are created entirely by CG

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

There you go, thanks for the quotes. They prove the opposite of what you say, though, since the intelligence they are based on is what the administration was feeding them.

Nice try tie, but you've been caught with your reading comp hanging out again. Half the quotes were from prior to 1999. If anyone was feeding info, it was the prior administration. *To be clear I don't buy it, but as far as your logic is concerned; you can't have it both ways. The truth of the matter is that various sources of intel suggested a possible connection since long before Bush Jr. took office. Notwithstanding the other debunked myths popular from the partisan shills here. Numerous politicians and officials from both sides made the connections to Al Qaeda, WMDs, and the threat Saddam posed. Accept it. It is fact. Period. Get over it.

I'll tell you the same thing I tell other people with selective memory; save your BS for those under 25 years old.

You were duped, and you are still being duped. To claim that the Bush administration did not make up this intelligence is partisan BS of the highest order. Etc. substantial memory loss blah short attention span etc. (R)/(D) blah fairy tale.

It makes you sick doesn't it? You just keep burying your head with every word you type tie and I know it makes you angry, but don't shoot the messenger. People don't like to hear that while they indict one party of being a snake, the other party slithers around unchecked. You've illustrated perhaps best of all how this frustration manifests and it's certainly not founded in defense of any truth.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

From day 1, my position (as well as many others) never changed because it was so god damn obvious what was going on and what would happen with Iraq. It's rather amusing watching both sides trying to squirm out of it and blame each other, especially Republicans. They should all be car salesmen, they twist it around so much and delude themselves to such an extent that they actually believe the horsesh*t they're shoveling.

I for one, hold both parties to account as I mentioned prior. Clearly, Cheney connected Iraq with Al Qaeda and it was apparent that 9/11 was being at least heavily implied as justifying action in Iraq. No doubt about it. I'm curious about people's focus however; why were we bombing Iraq in the 90's? Was it oil? Was there a 9/11? Why did we bomb an aspirin factory after Administration officials made connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda back in the 90's?

Let me lay it out for you guys, but it won't stop all the partisan spin to save face:

The only thing I'm willing to accept is facts surrounding both party's motivations behind action in Iraq. Anything other than implicating both party's is partisan spin to save face.

1. 9/11 was not orchestrated by our government, it's rediculous to think so.
2. 9/11 would not have been thwarted even if Bush's current policies were in effect.
3. The Bush Administration knowingly and pueposefully used 9/11 as a scapegoat to garner support for the war in Iraq.
4. The Iraq war is about money. That's it.
5. The majority of U.S. voters are gullible.

Agreed on all counts.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The only thing I'm willing to accept is facts surrounding both party's motivations behind action in Iraq. Anything other than implicating both party's is partisan spin to save face.

Absolutely. The Democrats were just a little better at pretending they didn't care about the money. Both sides were just disgusting in regards to the war. The Republicans wanted the war for the eventual payoff, but only slightly worse, the Democrats wanted the war for the eventual payoff, but also wanted a reason to blame a Republican administration so they could get a Democrat in office. They all jumped on the bandwagon when they knew perfectly well what was going on, then do a complete 180. I don't think the Democrats expected Bush to win the second term.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Nice try tie, but you've been caught with your reading comp hanging out again. Half the quotes were from prior to 1999.

Half the quotes were irrelevant, so I ignored them.

I addressed the other quotes, and you haven't replied.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Why did we bomb an aspirin factory after Administration officials made connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda back in the 90's?

Who cares? It's not a big deal and doesn't matter.

[tie]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The Republicans wanted the war for the eventual payoff, but only slightly worse, the Democrats wanted the war for the eventual payoff, but also wanted a reason to blame a Republican administration so they could get a Democrat in office.

Are you saying that Democrats wanted a war that they knew we would lose, so they could blame the Republicans? This is an odd theory, and I certainly don't agree with it. Or am I misinterpreting you?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Half the quotes were irrelevant, so I ignored them.

I addressed the other quotes, and you haven't replied.

Let's try this again. This is what you said in its entirety;

Originally Posted by tie

There you go, thanks for the quotes. They prove the opposite of what you say, though, since the intelligence they are based on is what the administration was feeding them. You were duped, and you are still being duped. To claim that the Bush administration did not make up this intelligence is partisan BS of the highest order. Etc. substantial memory loss blah short attention span etc. (R)/(D) blah fairy tale.

That's weak tie. You didn't specify which quotes you were replying to that I was to address and made some lame blanket statement that the quotes show the opposite of what I say. Again, half the quotes were from 1999 and prior so... they don't show the opposite of anything no matter how badly you want them to. Secondly, you didn't provide a cogent argument in the first place. Saying this Administration fed intel to the others for whom I've quoted isn't enough. They all acted on the same intel provided by various sources. Assuming they read them. I'm inclined to believe they were more interested in polling numbers supporting action than anything else. OlePigeon's assessment is accurate IMO. Both are playing a political game. The fact that you're compelled to defend the (D) when they've done the same things as the (R) is predictable, but again has no interest in facts.

Who cares? It's not a big deal and doesn't matter.

Well it kinda establishes the fact that a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq cannot be the brain-child of the Bush Administration if the connection was made by the prior Administration, but we were talking about toeing the party line, being duped, etc...

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Saying this Administration fed intel to the others for whom I've quoted isn't enough. They all acted on the same intel provided by various sources. Assuming they read them. I'm inclined to believe they were more interested in polling numbers supporting action than anything else.

By "various sources," I guess you mean the Senate's independent intelligence agencies? There's no such thing, and there's no reason to say that "they all acted on the same intel." Better to be vague about it, I see. Well, that's your whole argument, then. Essentially it boils down to that you are "inclined to believe" in the Bush administration. Good for you. Maybe you can post some more stupid ape pictures and you'll really have convinced me.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

By "various sources," I guess you mean the Senate's independent intelligence agencies? There's no such thing, and there's no reason to say that "they all acted on the same intel." Better to be vague about it, I see.

You're an idiot.

A. I didn't say "Senate independent intelligence agency" because you're right, there's no such thing. There is a Senate Intelligence Committee however and that's what I said.
B. "Various sources" such as; the Senate Intelligence Committee, the 9/11 commission, and British intel. That would constitute "various" by definition. Better have another read. Who knows, maybe three time's a charm.
C. You can chest-pound stupidity and throw in little snide remarks and winkee faces, but then you're just being loud, belligerent, and stupid.

Well, that's your whole argument, then. Essentially it boils down to that you are "inclined to believe" in the Bush administration. Good for you. Maybe you can post some more stupid ape pictures and you'll really have convinced me.

Yep that's my whole argument. Why do you insist others are defending an Administration when they correct your ignorance? What is your problem with facts anyway? Any time I step in to show how both sides of the aisle have been at fault, you feel compelled to defend the (D)s, then accuse me of believing in the Bush Administration. Can you site one example in this thread or any other thread for that matter; where I've indicated I "believe" in the Bush Administration?

No?

Well then, quit being an idiot. Thanx.

[tie]

You wrote, "They all acted on the same intel provided by various sources," meaning the Congress and the Administration. This is false. So your argument doesn't stand.

"C. You can chest-pound stupidity and throw in little snide remarks and winkee faces, but then you're just being loud, belligerent, and stupid."

I think you're the one doing all this. But you one-upped me with the name-calling and monkey picture.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

You wrote, "They all acted on the same intel provided by various sources," meaning the Congress and the Administration. This is false. So your argument doesn't stand.

You missed the argument tie. The full context of what I said was; Saying this Administration fed intel to the others for whom I've quoted isn't enough. They all acted on the same intel provided by various sources. Assuming they read them.
The only quote that was post-1999 was Hillary Clinton's at the top. All 100 US Senators were given access to the full classifed Iraq NIE complete with INR, DOE, and US Air Force intelligence information including dissenting opinion. Hillary never read it.

I think you're the one doing all this. But you one-upped me with the name-calling and monkey picture.

I get a little miffed when one of the arguably, most partisan-minded in here tries to imply that I'm somehow a Bush Administration apologist when the only thing that's clear is the defensive posture you've taken on behalf of the other side of the aisle. Woefully lacking of any contribution of facts to this conversation you lashed out with the snide remarks. If this isn't the reaction you wanted, I'm curious what was.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by tie 

Are you saying that Democrats wanted a war that they knew we would lose, so they could blame the Republicans? This is an odd theory, and I certainly don't agree with it. Or am I misinterpreting you?

Misinterpreting. The Democrats supported the war for the possible return on contracts, oil, etc. They weren't concerned if we'd win or not because it was a win/win situation for them. If (when) the war didn't go the way they wanted to, they could just blame the Republicans. If the war had been decidedly successful, the Democrats could say they supported it from Day 1 and reap the rewards.